[lkml]   [2010]   [Feb]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Linux mdadm superblock question.
 	Hello Bill ,

On Tue, 16 Feb 2010, Bill Davidsen wrote:
> Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
>> On Sonntag 14 Februar 2010, you wrote:
>>> In other words, 'auto-detection' for 1.x format devices is using an
>>> initrd/initramfs.
>> which makes 1.x format useless for everybody who does not want to deal with
>> initrd/initramfs.
> You make this sound like some major big deal. are you running your own
> distribution? In most cases mkinitrd does the right thing when you "make
> install" the kernel, and if you are doing something in the build so complex
> that it needs options, you really should understand the options and be sure
> you're doing what you want.
> Generally this involves preloading a module or two, and if you need it every
> time you probably should have built it in, anyway.
> My opinion...
My Opinion as well . That is one of the many reasons why I have my '/'
autoassemble . And do to this I am permanently stuck at 0.90 version of the
raid table . No big shakes for that . But at sometime in the past there was a
discussion to have the 0.90 raid table be removed , NOW THAT SCARES THE H?LL
OUT OF ME . So far Neil has not done so .

I am unaware of any record from Neil or other maintainer(s) of the
/md/ device tree saying that they will not remove the 0.90 table and the
autoassembly functions there . I'd very much like to hear a statement saying
there will not be a removal of the autoassembly functions for 0.90 raid table
from the kernel tree .

Tia , JimL
| James W. Laferriere | System Techniques | Give me VMS |
| Network&System Engineer | 3237 Holden Road | Give me Linux |
| | Fairbanks, AK. 99709 | only on AXP |

 \ /
  Last update: 2010-02-17 02:07    [W:0.124 / U:0.068 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site